Vern Edwards

Cancel the procurement, start over, and find someone who knows what they're doing to conduct it.

@Freyr One thing is to decide whether to solicit offers or quotes in simplified acquisitions. Note what Prof. Nash had to say about that.

The RFP for the concept development acquisition, W56HZV-20-R-0142, is one of the worst I have ever seen.

@FreyrYou should be careful about communicating with the offerors (quoters?). I have attached an article by Prof. Nash from this month's issue of The Nash & Cibinic Report, in which he discusses the GAO's handling of protests of simplified acquisitions. He discusses issues that have arisen about government communications with quoters. I think the article is on point with your situation. If you decide to talk to Offeror B, you should think about how to be fair to Offeror A. SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION Keep It Simple.pdf

Have YOU searched beta.sam.gov? What will you pay for the service?

"Remember"? Remember from when? Where? On what is that proposition based? Where does it say that in FAR? If not in FAR, where else?

Go here https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2013/m-13-10.pdf Read. Then go here https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2013-06-21/pdf/2013-14614.pdf Read. Then go here https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=9c86071c-4432-4b84-b6a6-7b1954e2e08c "New procurement rule is intended to limit the Government’s acceptance of standard commercial terms of service for social media applications" Read. @Witty_Username Keep in mind that the people who write the FAR are neither thoughtful implementers of policy nor procedural practitioners. They just scribble and move on, leaving it up to you to figure it out. So put it all together and figure it out.

Control.

Very ambitious technical requirements. Not promising. The 171-page concept design phase RFP is now available at beta.SAM.gov. Just search for OMFV. DOD still lacks the simplicity gene—there are 74 attachments. They plan to award up to five firm-fixed-price contracts, incrementally funded. Typical bureaucratic source selection. They want "narrative" "approach" proposals, of course. DOD can't be taught and never learns. "Speed of relevance" my ***. Given our country's dependence on contracts and contractors, competitive proposals "best value" contracting as practiced today is going to be the death of us. No, I would not accept the job as program manager on the OMFV. They'll get someone to do it. There will probably be three or four of them over the course of the next six years.

From the GAO Red Book, Ch. 5, E. Effect of Litigation on Period of Availability: The actual statute, 31 USC 1558, reads as follows:

The FAR doesn't "work" in that regard. It does not address that issue. Funds are not "awarded." They are obligated. If de-obligated, they might not be available for new obligations. Go to the GAO Red Book and read Ch. 5, Availability of Appropriations: Time; D. Disposition of Appropriation Balances; 3. Expired Appropriation Accounts.

Well, it makes sense to have the IG do it, and it will give the CBCA more to do. And if the IG decided to contract for the services, I'm pretty sure they'd use the tradeoff process and pay for the "best, most expensive people." 😏

Anyone who asserts that there is no such thing as an acceptable level of risk doesn't understand risk. As a member of the Society for Risk Analysis in good standing, I can assure you that if there weren't such a thing as an acceptable level of risk no one would ever leave their house. I know Steve's paper and have quoted it. I don't recall him saying that there is no such thing as an acceptable level of risk. But it's been a while since I have read it, and I'm not going to read it again. So if he did say that, please cite the page, and I'll pull his chain the next time I see him. I read the DOE IG report as complaining about the independence of auditors. I don't recall the IG saying that the government should hire the "best, most expensive people." That sounds like an argument against contracting for audit services. I admit that I have only scanned the IG report, but it read to me like a recommendation to expand the IG office, not to contract for audit services. Is that how you read it?

@here_2_helpActually, I'm not going to tell you that a good solicitation would address that risk. Instead, I'm going to challenge your premise that the government needs "the best, most expensive people" to staff routine incurred cost and CAS compliance audits of government contracts. I don't think so. I think we need only reasonably competent people. I would be fine with "junior folks plus a couple of managers." Who does DCAA use? What level of quality does the government get from DCAA? I don't think incurred cost audits of government contractors require the same level of expertise as audits of publicly-traded international business firms. Do you? I don't think DODIG or DCAA audits are at that level. I used to negotiate IR&D and B&P ceilings for DOD and NASA, and worked closely with DCAA auditors of companies like Rockwell International and General Electric. I know what kinds of audits we got. I don't think anything has changed much. So why must audits performed by contractors be at that level? What risk? That the government might inadvertently pay some amount of unallowable cost? That happens under DCAA audits. I'm not saying, "Good enough for government work." I'm saying that an incurred cost or CAS compliance audit of Boeing or Lockheed is not as demanding as the internal and external corporate audits of those firms and firms like Amazon, Facebook, or Microsoft under, say, Sarbanes-Oxley. So, why am I wrong?

Why not? I don't have much practical knowledge of auditing, but it seems like the SOW would not be hard to write. There are well-defined and long-established commercial standards for auditing, aren't there? There's your performance work statement. Firm-fixed-price contract? Cost-reimbursement?Time-and-materials? The key would be to identify qualified CPA firms that are experienced in the application of government cost principles and cost accounting standards. If we could price each individual audit FFP, I think I could hire a competent auditor through sealed bidding in a very short time. Certainly through LPTA. I think that we could establish special responsibility standards IAW FAR 9.104-2. Am I wrong? Why should we pay premium? We're not talking about rocket science. Are we? No lives at stake. Are there? The biggest problem would be: Who would perform contract quality assurance?

Yes, and if the contractor can hire the auditor, there is no need for the Government to hire them. It might take a year or longer for the Government to hire an auditor. 🙄

@WC79ji20874 is correct! All the case that I cited says is that it was done. It was not an issue in that case. Look at your solicitation or contract to see what it says.

Just Google "B-298912." If I weren't familiar with it, how would I have known to tell you about it?

Since this thread exists and mentions me, a comment about those comments and The Source Selection Bootcamp®. I post only to clarify some misconceptions. FAR does not define "source selection" and term is used in contexts other than FAR Part 15. See, for example, the definition of source selection information in FAR 2.101, which reads in part as follows: Boldface added. See also FAR 36.601-3(b): Emphasis added. By statute, the competitive process described in FAR Part 15 is "competitive proposals." See 10 USC 2305(a)(2) and 41 USC 3301(b)(2). See also FAR 6.102(b) and 6.401(b). The FAR Part 15 process is also described as "competitive negotiation." It is true that FAR Subpart 15.3 is entitled "source selection" and that in common parlance "source selection" refers to the process addressed by that subpart, but it is not true that a source selection class "would" address only FAR Subpart 15.3. Broadly defined, the term "source selection" encompasses the contractor selection and contract formation processes prescribed by FAR 8.4, 13, 14, 15, 16.5, 35.016, 36.3, and 36.6, and a "source selection" class could address any process by which the government chooses a "source," i.e., a contractor. In short, a source selection class would presumably address whatever the person conducting the class wants to teach about contractor selection and contract formation. It is true that agencies use FAR Part 15 procedures when not required to do so. The Source Selection Bootcamp® discourages such practices. But the fact is that people do it, and when they do the GAO will look to FAR Part 15 for guidance when deciding a protest. See Innovative Quality Solutions, LLC, GAO B-419009.2, Dec. 17, 2020. So the course teaches the concepts, principles, and rules of FAR Part 15, as applied, to anyone who wants to understand them, no matter what kinds of acquisitions they conduct. The course does not teach detailed procedures, although it makes recommendations, because agencies and offices within agencies use a wide variety of detailed procedures, and what is "right" for some is "wrong" for others. The course teaches ideas, such as what kind of thing an evaluation factor is and about factor measurement and value functions, ideas you would learn in a class or from a book about multiple attribute decision making, which is what the source selection tradeoff process referred to in Part 15 is really about. The course also teaches ideas such as that contrary to FAR usage of common parlance, the government does not evaluate "proposals," it evaluates offerors and their offers based on information in proposals and available elsewhere. It teaches people how to read, interpret, and apply Part 15. What The Source Selection Bootcamp® tries to do is disperse the cloud of unknowing that inhibits simplification.

Yes, it's possible. Why not? It is not impermissible, unless you have defined "key (i.e., important) personnel" or consultant in such a way as to make it so? There have been a number of GAO protest decisions which have mentioned consultants as key personnel. See, e.g., Magellan Health Services, GAO B-298912, Jan. 5, 2007:

Please clarify: Are you saying that the contractor is proposing someone to be a key person who will be working for them as a consultant, rather than as an employee?

Everyone wants examples. Many want them for cutting and pasting, because cutting and pasting is easier than thinking things through. Cutting and pasting instead of thinking is one of the reasons source selection is the mess it is today. Cutting and pasting is the antithesis of thinking. If you don't want to think, don't take the Source Selection Bootcamp®.

Is it your impression that every firm which sells goods to a government prime contractor or subcontractor is itself a government subcontractor? Even firms whose goods are purchased for general stock inventory?

You are not being clear. What do you mean by "stop gap/bridge"?

See this: Competitive Processes in Government Contracting: The FAR Part 15 Process Model and Process Inefficiency.